A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Modern wearable devices report several heart rate-based nocturnal health metrics, including resting heart rate (RHR) and heart rate variability (HRV). The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of nocturnal RHR and HRV from five wearable devices (Garmin Fenix 6, Oura Generation 3, Oura Generation 4, Polar Grit X Pro, & Whoop 4.0) against an electrocardiogram (ECG) reference. Thirteen healthy adults (6 females) wore an ECG reference and multiple wearables simultaneously during sleep, totaling 536 nights. Interdevice accuracy varied significantly (p < 0.05). For RHR, Oura Gen 3 (Lin's Concordance [CCC] = 0.97, mean absolute percentage error [MAPE] = 1.67 ± 1.54%) and Gen 4 (CCC = 0.98, MAPE = 1.94 ± 2.51%) demonstrated the highest accuracy, outperforming Polar's poor (CCC = 0.86, MAPE = 2.71 ± 2.75%) and WHOOP's moderate agreement (CCC = 0.91, MAPE = 3.00 ± 2.15%). Garmin was excluded from RHR analyses due to methodological inconsistencies. For HRV, Oura devices provided the highest accuracy; Oura Gen 4 (CCC = 0.99, MAPE = 5.96 ± 5.12%), Oura Gen 3 (CCC = 0.97, MAPE = 7.15 ± 5.48%). WHOOP showed moderate accuracy (CCC = 0.94, MAPE = 8.17 ± 10.49%), followed by poor agreement from both Garmin (CCC = 0.87, MAPE = 10.52 ± 8.63%) and Polar (CCC = 0.82, MAPE = 16.32 ± 24.39%). Oura devices showed the highest agreement for RHR and HRV, and WHOOP showed acceptable agreement, whereas Garmin Fenix and Polar demonstrated lower concordance, highlighting the importance of continuous validation and providing valuable benchmarks for clinicians, researchers, and consumers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12367097PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.70527DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

heart rate
16
resting heart
8
rate variability
8
wearable devices
8
oura generation
8
ecg reference
8
heart
5
validation nocturnal
4
nocturnal resting
4
rate
4

Similar Publications